SpaceX's growing Starlink megaconstellation could be hindering the Earth's ozone layer from healing itself, researchers find.

Abstract from the paper in the article:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024GL109280

Large constellations of small satellites will significantly increase the number of objects orbiting the Earth. Satellites burn up at the end of service life during reentry, generating aluminum oxides as the main byproduct. These are known catalysts for chlorine activation that depletes ozone in the stratosphere. We present the first atomic-scale molecular dynamics simulation study to resolve the oxidation process of the satellite’s aluminum structure during mesospheric reentry, and investigate the ozone depletion potential from aluminum oxides. We find that the demise of a typical 250-kg satellite can generate around 30 kg of aluminum oxide nanoparticles, which may endure for decades in the atmosphere. Aluminum oxide compounds generated by the entire population of satellites reentering the atmosphere in 2022 are estimated at around 17 metric tons. Reentry scenarios involving mega-constellations point to over 360 metric tons of aluminum oxide compounds per year, which can lead to significant ozone depletion.

PS: wooden satellites can help mitigate this https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01456-z

        • sunbeam60@lemmy.oneEnglish
          8·
          5 months ago

          No they’re somehow managing to blow it neither launching nor exploding rockets.

        • CookieOfFortune@lemmy.worldEnglish
          6·
          5 months ago

          And the lesson is that they probably should’ve blown up more rockets on purpose rather than lose them on accident.

          The Falcon 9 has the largest number of successful launches of any rocket ever by a large margin.

            • sunbeam60@lemmy.oneEnglish
              3·
              5 months ago

              I mean you can giggle at the turn of phrase, but clearly what is meant is to be more willing to tolerate risk. Very clearly that’s been a much shorter path to success than the one NASA took.

              • intensely_human@lemm.eeEnglish
                2·
                5 months ago

                You can be more direct with it. Going out and doing something you know will fail is failing on purpose. SpaceX fails on purpose sometimes. They don’t just tolerate the risk of it; they set up cameras and other sensors and push their systems to failure on purpose.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          5 months ago

          I am pretty sure they are making lots of money. You know based on the little bit of financial information leaking out.

          Lots of people are experts on this topic it seems. They should form their own launch provider and show how it is done. Because results generally speak for themselves. They went from nothing to controlling over half the launches of the human race as a whole in about a decade. Did they get government money? Oh you betcha. Did they get as much as their rivals did? Not even close.

          Reusability makes sense, this technique of rapid trial and error also makes sense.

        • sunbeam60@lemmy.oneEnglish
          7·
          5 months ago

          That might be true. But every organisation has to achieve its goals in the context that it exists. And to be fair to NASA they’ve realised it’s better to outsource development because it’s less prone to porn barrel politics.

          • sunbeam60@lemmy.oneEnglish
            3·
            5 months ago

            Wow 🤣 I am not sure what happened there. Should have been PORK barrel politics.

            I’m also intrigued. Clearly things are more exciting at NASA than I thought.

      • Argonne@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        5 months ago

        That’s never going to happen. Both Democrats and Republicans abuse NASA and take money from it. Because the public doesn’t care or understand the importance of space travel. Your comments are a prime example of misinformation about space capabilities that NASA has. Without SpaceX, we would still be sucking Russia off to launch on the ISS. Spacex doesn’t give a fuck about politicians and just does what they want. That might be bad one day, but today it’s fucking great, and anyone saying otherwise is either misinformed or intentionally misleading

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.worldEnglish
        21·
        5 months ago

        NASA has blown up their fair share of rockets in their day. A couple of shuttles as well. I’m saying that all the people working at SpaceX would have been better employed as NASA employees so their research isn’t payealled.